Number of Occurrences in Liability Claims Framing the Occurrence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Number of Occurrences in Liability Claims

Framing the Occurrence Issue to Maximize Policyholder's Coverage

• r Limit Insurer's Liability Exposure

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012

Presenting a live 110-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Jerold Oshinsky, Partner, Jenner & Block, Los Angeles John T . Harding, Partner, Morrison Mahoney, Boston

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-927-5568 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• Close the notification box
• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Number of Occurrences in Liability Claims

Jerold Oshinsky Jenner & Block LLP 213.239.5156 joshinsky@jenner.com John T. Harding Morrison Mahoney LLP 617.439.7558 jharding@morrisonmahoney.com Strafford Seminars November 7, 2012

5

6

“Occurrences”

• An unusual and tricky area of the law.
• Not “is there coverage” but “how much?”
• Small number of cases disguise the breadth of

the problem across all lines of coverage.

6

7

“Occurrences” Cases Used To Be Rare

• Requires unusual cluster of circumstances:

– Insured must be liable – Policy must afford coverage – Case doesn’t settle – Liability must exceed conceded coverage

• Insurers haven’t wanted to take a position.

– No consistent “right” position that is always beneficial – If you are excess today you may be primary tomorrow

7

8

Why Is This Now Such An Important Issue?

• Focus is increasingly on indemnity issues.

– Erosion of underlying layers of coverage

• Growing role of SIRS.
• High profile disputes:

WTC

8

9

Why This Issue Matters

9

10

Why Parties Have Avoided Litigating This Issue Until Now

• There’s no one answer that’s “right” all the time.
• Insureds Generally Want Multiple “Occurrences”

– Maximize Limits – But Not If They Have SIRs – and Not If They Want To “Spike” Excess Layers

• Insurers Generally Want One “Occurrence”

– But Not If The Insured Has SIRs – And Not If They Are Excess Carriers

10

11

“Occurrence” Players

• Dispute between insurer and policyholder.
• Dispute between primary and excess insurers.
• Dispute between insurer and reinsurer.

11

12

So What is an Occurrence?

• Generally defined by the policy.
• Frequently use the word “accident” to describe an

“occurrence”

– An “accident” is “an unexpected happening without intention or design . . . [and i]mplicit in the meaning of 'accident' is the lack of intentionality.” Sheehan Const. Co., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2010).

12

13

Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Du Pont 996 A.2d 1254 (Del. 2010)

• Very significant case illustrating the dilemmas for

policyholders and insurers

• Do “independent causes” = separate

“occurrences”?

• Significance of “premises locations”

14

MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

• $50 million per occurrence SIR
• Presents a $24 trillion dollar question
• Is the coverage illusory?

15

Non-Cumulation Clause

• Is it an alternative way to reduce exposure?
• Can it be used to reduce insurer’s exposure to

ZERO

• What effect should policyholder’s shifting “trigger”

have on application?

16

“Occurrences”: Determining Factors

Policy Wordings The “Cause” Test External Factors

16

17

Dual Policy Role of “Occurrence”

• “Occurrence” plays two separate roles

in CGL or excess policy

• 1. Insuring Agreement

– BI/PD must result from an “occurrence” – “Occurrence” is basis for insured’s liability

• 2. Limits of Liability

– Exposure to similar conditions is one “occurrence” – “Occurrence” is cap on insurer’s liability

17

18

Don’t Confuse the “Occurrence” with the “Trigger” of Coverage

“Occurrence” is not the trigger of coverage. “Occurrence” is the act of the insured (the accident, event or conditions) that results in injury.

– Cause

It is the resulting injury during the policy period that triggers coverage.

– Effect

18

19

I. Policy Wordings

• “Occurrence” Definitions

– Standard CGL: “Conditions” – Non-Standard: “Happenings and Events”

• Aggregates
• Non-Cumulation and Deemer Clauses

19

20

“Exposure To Conditions”

• “For the purpose of determining the company's

liability, all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one

• ccurrence.”

20

21

“Conditions” Refers to Cause of Injury, Not Basis for Liability

• Koikos v. Travelers, 849 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2003)

– Florida Supreme Court rejected Travelers’ argument that insured’s negligence was “conditions”:

• “The ‘continuous or repeated exposure’ language does not

restrict the definition of ‘occurrence’ but rather expands it by including ongoing and slowly developing injuries, such as those in the field of toxic torts….The victims were not “exposed” to the negligent failure to provide security. If the victims were “exposed” to anything, it was the bullets fired from the intruder’s gun.”

21

22

Aggregate Limits

• Until recently, CGL policies did not have general

aggregates

• Aggregate protection limited to “Products” and

“Completed Operations” Hazards

– Generally inapplicable to pollution – Problematic for asbestos claims: Keasbey

• Older Aggregate Wordings

– “Each premises location”

22

23

Non-Cumulation Clauses

• “It is agreed that if any loss covered hereunder is

also covered in whole or in part under any other excess policy issued to the Insured prior to the inception date hereof, the limit of liability hereon as stated in II(b) shall be reduced by any amounts due to the Insured on account of such loss under such prior insurance.”

23

24

Non-Cumulation Clauses

• Clause intended to prevent “stacking”.
• Only applies if loss from one “occurrence.”
• Most commonly upheld in “all sums” states,

– Liberty Mutual v. Treesdale, 418 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005)

• Courts in “allocation” states less willing to enforce.

– Spaulding v. Aetna, 819 A.2d 410 (N.J 2003)

• Insurer can’t use clause to reduce its allocable share further.

– But see: Hiraldo v. Allstate, 825 N.E.2d 133 (NY 2005)

• Insurer only owed one limit for lead paint.

24

25

Multi-Year Policies: Annualization and “Stub” Policies

• Three Year Policy: Three limits or One?

– Impact of “annualization” language – Occurrence limit applies to policy as a whole but “aggregate” applies to each annual period.

• Stub Policies

– Where one year policy is renewed for a few months more, should an additional limit apply? – Answer often depends on the underwriting intent.

25

26

Case Example

• California Ins. Co. v. Stimson Lumber Co., 2004 WL 1173185

(D. Or. May 26, 2004)

– Manufacturer sued for defects in exterior hardwood siding product – National Union excess policies had “prior insurance non-cumulation of liability” provision stating that if a “loss” covered under the policy was also covered in whole or in part under any earlier excess policy, the amounts due would be reduced by the amounts owed to the insured under that prior insurance. – Court rejected insured’s argument that “loss” referred only to each individual siding claim paid by Stimson and therefore should not reduce its claims in the aggregate. – “To the extent that there is any excess insurance coverage available for the siding loss, the non-cumulation provision applies to reduce National Union’s policy limits by the amounts paid in prior policy years as amounts paid by other excess settling insurers.”

26

27

II. Measuring “Occurrences”

• The “Effect” Test

– Focus is on the number of persons or property damaged by insured’s act or omission – Ostensibly the minority approach nowadays

• The “Cause” Test/Majority Approach

– Do diverse injuries or claims share a common cause?

• “Unfortunate Event” Test/Lemony Snicket Rule

– Would ordinary insured view diverse claims and injuries as involving a single “unfortunate event”? – Principally followed in New York

27

28

What Does “Cause” Mean?

• While most states use a “cause” approach, it has
• ften proven to be an elastic and result-oriented

tool.

• Does “cause” mean?

– The “cause” of the insured’s liabilities; or – The “cause” of the plaintiffs’ injuries?

28

29

“Remote” v. “Immediate” Causes

• No distinction between cause of injury and liability

where insured is immediate, physical cause of loss (e.g. auto accident).

• Issues arise, however, where insured is “remote”

from accident, as where insured is product manufacturer or distributor or is sued for misconduct of others.

29

30

• III. External Factors
• Role of Insured
• Circumstances of Loss
• Coverage Profile

30

31

1. Role of Insured

• Immediate or remote actor?
• Was the insured present at the scene?
• Other intervening causes?

31

32

2. Circumstances of Loss

• Injurious Mechanism

– Did all the injuries result from a single on-going physical process or continuum (e.g. fire, flood)?

• Proximity:

– Did injuries occur around the same time and place?

32

33

3. Coverage Profile

• Do policies have SIRs or deductibles?

– If so, insured is more likely to argue that diverse losses arise out of one “occurrence.”

• Are the limits enough to satisfy the claims?

– If not, insured is likely to press primary insurer to accept claims as separate “occurrences.”

33

34

• IV. “Occurrence” Claim Types

34

35

Issue Cuts Across Diverse Claims

• Asbestos
• Auto
• Construction Defect
• Environmental
• Food
• Molestation
• Premises Liability
• Products Claims
• Shootings

35

36

ASBESTOS CLAIMS

36

37

One Occurrence: “Cause” = Manufacturing

• Colt Industries (high “per occurrence” deductibles)
• Morton-Thiokol (retrospective premiums)
• Treesdale (pro-Insurer)
• Owens-Illinois (marketing of products)

37

38

The Alternative View: Each Individual Claimant is a Separate “Occurrence”

• LMI v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154

(Ct. App. 2007)(rejects “remote cause” analysis)

• Met Life v. Aetna, 765 A. 2d 891 (Conn.

2001) (“cause” of injuries was each claimant’s exposure to asbestos fibers)

38

39

The Dramatic Impact

• Appalachian Ins. v. GE, 863 N.E. 2d 994 (N.Y.

2007)

– Each worker = one “occurrence” – Self-insured primary layer -- no aggregates – NO RECOVERY FROM EXCESS PROGRAM

39

40

The Pendulum Swings

• Plastics Engineering v. Liberty Mutual, 759

N.W. 2d 613 (Wis. 2009)

– Each claimant = separate occurrence – Liberty pays through the nose – Primary and excess/no aggregate

40

41

Building Claims Too

• Stonewall v. Asbestos Claims Mgt., 73 F.3d 1178

(2d Cir. 1995)

– Decision to manufacture wallboard not the “occurrence” – Each individual installation = “occurrence” – Policies had a high “per occurrence” deductible

41

42

Just in from the Front Lines

• Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning, Inc.,

946 N.Y.S.2d 136 (1st Dept. 2012)

• Revisits the issue concerning number of

“occurrences” that was the subject of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 8 N.Y. 3d 162 (2007)

43

Framing the Dispute

• Insurers moved for a declaration that each of the

asbestos-related claims at issue constituted a separate “occurrence” under the policies.

• Underlying claims arose from two different products:

– Paper-like spacer material used in construction of steel mills – Unibestos, an asbestos-containing piping insulation

44

45

The Arguments

• Focus of the dispute was whether a separate

deductible would apply to each of the subject claims.

• Under Appalachian, New York courts apply the

“unfortunate event test.”

• However, parties are free to group incidents based

upon other approaches.

46

The Policy Language

• “For purposes of determining the limit of the

company’s liability, all bodily injury or property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one

• ccurrence.”
• Indicates an intent that certain types of similar

claims be grouped or combined.

47

The Result

• Court concluded that the record was not sufficiently

developed to resolve the issue on summary judgment.

• Exposures emanating from the same location at a

substantially similar time will be considered a single

• ccurrence.

48

The Conclusion

• While thousands of claims clearly are not a single
• ccurrence, “any group of claims arising from

exposure to an asbestos condition at a common location, at approximately the same time (for example, at the same steel mill or factory), may be found to have arisen from the same occurrence.”

• IN OTHER WORDS, IT ALL DEPENDS

49

Construction Defect Claims

Contractors Distributors Manufacturers

49

50

Case Example No. 1 Manufacturers

• Manufacturer sold Periclase plaster product.
• Bills of lading said “For Exterior Use Only” but no similar warning
• n product container.
• Contractors installed product on interiors of dozens of homes,

causing stains and blemish to 28 of them.

• Primary insurer argued “cause” was defective product.
• Excess carrier (Wausau) argued that since not all homes suffered

damage, injury not inevitable and therefore each of the 28 applications that did cause injury was the direct “cause” of the insured’s liabilities.

• So was it one “occurrence” or twenty-eight?

50

51

And The Answer Is…

• One.
• Chemstar v. Liberty Mutual, 41 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1994)

(California law)

– Ninth Circuit ruled that there was no intervening proximate cause after insured’s failure to warn.

• Southern Int’l Corp. v. Poly-Urethane Ind., Inc., 353

So.2d 646 (Fla. App. 1977)

– Negligent application of insured’s roof sealing product to numerous buildings held one ”occurrence”.

• Damage due to product, not application.

51

52

Case Example No. 2

• Product manufacturer or distributor sued for

construction defect problems associated with installation of its product in homes.

• Is “occurrence” the installation of the defective

product or a defect in the design or manufacture

• f the product itself?

52

53

And The Answer Is…

• One.
• Owners Ins. Co. v. Salmonsen, 622 S.E.2d 525 (S.C.

2005)

– Class action filed against distributor of “Parex,” a synthetic stucco product that caused water intrusion to plaintiffs’ homes. – S. C. Supreme Court ruled that class members’ claims arose

• ut of a single “occurrence” as they were all based on the

distribution of an inherently defective product and not because of the negligent distribution of otherwise satisfactory goods. – “Placing a defective product into the stream of commerce is

• ne occurrence”

53

54

Clear? Not Just Yet…

• New York courts have held in asbestos cases that it is the

installation of insured’s product into a building that is the “occurrence”

– Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Management, 73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995)(insurable "occurrence" was not the manufacturer's "general decision" to manufacture wallboard containing asbestos but rather each installation of those wallboards). – Maryland Cas. Co. v. W.R. Grace and Co., 128 F.3d 794, 799 (2d

• Cir. 1997) (each installation of asbestos material in a building was

a separate "occurrence“)

54

55

Case Example No. 3 Contractors

• After three separate heavy rainstorms, sewage backed up

into numerous homeowners’ properties, resulting in claims against the City for failing to properly maintain the municipal drainage system.

• Primary insurer contended that the number of

"occurrences" should be determined by reference to the number of storms.

• City argued that the court should look to the specific

circumstances of each citizens' claim.

55

56

And The Answer Is…

• Neither.
• Home Ind. Co. v. City of Mobile, 749 F.2d 659 (11th Cir.

1984)(Alabama law).

– 11th Circuit adopted an intermediate position, holding that each discrete causative act of negligence was a separate "occurrence“ no matter how many individual properties were damaged as a result.

• Bethpage Water District v. S. Zara & Sons, 546 N.Y.S.2d 645,

154 A.D.2d 645 (2nd Dept. 1989)

– Contractor’s negligent backfilling damaged 250 parts of water main system. – Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court held that claims all involved exposure to "substantially the same general conditions.” – Note that this result benefited insured since it was only required to pay a single deductible.

56

57

Clear? Not Just Yet…

• Courts may find separate “occurrences” if damage was due to

defective work that differs from site to site rather than defect in construction product. – U.S. Fire v. Safeco Ins. Co., 444 So.2d 844 (Ala. 1983)

• Roof leaked over time due to cracks and deterioration
• Contractor repaired but left section unroofed, causing

further leakage.

• Alabama Supreme Court held that failure to maintain roof

and contractor's subsequent failure to fix roof were separate "causes.”

57

58

Premises Liability

Photo of bar

58

59

Case Example No. 1

• Plaintiff that had leased space over nightclub, filed suit

against landlord complaining that loud music over period

• f months was a breach of lease’s covenant of quiet

enjoyment and habitability.

• Are number of “occurrences” determined by:

– Breach of the lease covenant? – Overall noise experience? – Individual noisy performances? – Repeated encores of “Stairway to Heaven”?

59

60

And The Answer Is???

• One
• Peck v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.
• Supp. 2d 137 (D. Conn. March 24, 2005)

– Judge ruled that on-going exposure to noise from insured’s nightclub involved exposure to similar conditions.

60

61

Case Example No. 2

• After two unruly patrons were ejected from the

insured’s bar, one went to his car and, returning with a gun, shot the other patron.

• Estate sued the bar for dram shop violations and

for failing to provide safety.

• Was the fight inside the bar part of the same

“occurrence”?

61

62

And The Answer Is???

• One.
• Continental Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 507 S.W.2d 146

(Ky. 1973)

• Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that fight outside

the bar was a continuation of the brawl that had begun inside and therefore arose out of the same “occurrence.”

62

63

Case Example No. 3

• Father tore rotator cuff while running to save his

boy, who was being mauled by neighbor’s dog.

• Father and son sued for bite wounds and shoulder

surgery based on insured’s failure to contain the dog.

• One occurrence or two?

63

64

And The Answer Is???

• Two.
• Hodgson v. Bremen Farmers Mut., 3 P.2d 1281 (Kan.
• App. 1999)

– Court finds that father and son suffered injures due to two different causes. – Rejects insurer’s argument that father’s injury would not have

• ccurred but for emergency suffered by son.

But see:

• Doria v. INA, 509 A.2d 220 (N.J. Super. 1986)

(incident in which two boys drowned while one tried to save the other arose out of the same “occurrence”).

64

65

Case Example No. 4

• Insured owned a swimming pool that he failed to

secure.

• A neighbor’s child fell in the pool, while taking a

shortcut across the property.

• His friend also drowned while trying to save his

companion.

• One occurrence or two?

65

66

And The Answer Is?

• One.
• In Doria v. INA, 210 N.J. Super. 67, 509 A.2d 220

(1986), the Appellate Division ruled that injuries to two boys arose out of one “occurrence” where harm resulted from same cause and was closely linked in time and space.

66

67

But Not So Fast…

• What if the circumstances of the loss are unknown?

– Addison Ins. Co. v. Fay, 905 N.E.2d 747 (Ill. 2009)

• Two boys died of hypothermia in wet sand on a

neighbor’s property.

• While stating that the two deaths might well have involved

a single “occurrence” if the injuries had occurred closely together in time and space, the court found that it was impossible to prove how the boys died.

• As the insurer had failed in its burden of proof, the Illinois

Supreme Court held that the claims must be treated as involving separate “occurrences.”

67

68

Products Claims

68

69

Batch Clauses

• Older policies provided that losses involving a

single lot or “batch” of the insured’s products are

• ne “occurrence.”
• Controversy persists as to whether these clauses
• nly apply to defective manufacture or should also

extend to design defect or inherently dangerous products.

69

70

Current (Bermuda) Forms: Integrated “Occurrence” Clauses

• Allows insured to designate common claims from

a product as single “occurrence” even if injuries span multiple periods.

• But limited to that specific policy year.

70

71

Proposed “Causes” of Products Claims

• Insured Manufacturer’s Decision To Market Defective

Product or Failure to Warn of Dangers Posed By Dangerous/Defective Product

– One “occurrence” per type of product

• Plaintiffs Injured Under Similar Circumstances

– One “occurrence” per year

• Individual Circumstances of Disease or Injury

– One “occurrence” per plaintiff.

71

72

Single “Occurrence” Rationale

• These are “occurrence” policies.
• Business purpose of policy is to provide coverage for

what insured did or didn’t do.

• Circumstances beyond insured’s control

shouldn’t determine availability of coverage.

• Where insured is a “remote actor” (e.g. manufacturer),

what was last act over which insured had any control:

– Decision to manufacture – Failure to warn

72

73

Multiple “Occurrence” Rationale

• “Causes” of tort claimant’s injuries are too

dissimilar; dispersed in time, place and manner of injury to be grouped together.

• Focus should be on the manner in which each

individual was injured.

• Is there a “signature” injury?

73

74

Case Example No. 1

• Cows died after insured sold farmers cattle feed into

which he had accidentally mixed PBB fire retardant instead of feed supplement.

74

75

Should number of “occurrences” be determined by:

– Number of dead cows? – Number of unhappy farmers? – Number of shipments? – Defective product?

75

76

And The Answer Is?

• Number of shipments.
• Michigan Chemical Corp. v. American Home Assur. Corp.,

728 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1984)

• Sixth Circuit ruled that because PBB had been introduced

into some shipments and not others, it was the individual shipments of contaminated cattle feed by the manufacturer that were the cause.

76

77

Case Example No. 2

• Insured sold contaminated bird seed to eight dealers, who

in turn sold the seed to numerous individual pet owners.

• Should number of “occurrences” be determined by

– Number of dead birds? – Distributors’ sales to bird dealers? – Insured’s sales to distributors” – Defective product?

77

78

And The Answer Is?

• Insured’s sales to distributors (8).
• Maurice Pincoffs Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 447

F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1971).

– Fifth Circuit ruled in Louisiana case that governing “cause” was insured’s sales to dealers since that was the last event over which the insured had any control. – Focus is on “cause” of the insured’s liability, not cause of birds’ deaths.

78

79

Manufacturer Claims

• Claims against manufacturers are more likely to be treated

as one “occurrence” where based on something intrinsic to the product itself.

• Cargill, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 488 F. Supp. 49 (D.
• Minn. 1979), aff’d, 621 F.2d 275 (8th Cir. 1980)

– Multiple sales of contaminated nutrient medium were held to constitute one “occurrence” based on theory that all the ensuing claims were caused by a change in the nutrient formula.

79

80

Consistency Isn’t The Problem

• Dow Chemical Corp. v. Associated Indemnity Corp., 727 F.
• Supp. 1524 (E.D. Mich. 1989)

– Property damage arising out of the installation of “Sarabond” mortar product in buildings. Judge Churchill ruled that each installation of Sarabond in a separate building was a separate “occurrence” since the manner of injury occurred differed from site to site.

• Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Dow Chemical, 814 F.
• Supp. 613 (E.D. Mich. 1993).

– Defects in one of Dow’s resin products required the replacement of a vast natural gas pipeline network. Judge Churchill ruled that the claims arose from an inherently defective product, so one “occurrence.”

80

81

Environmental Claims

81

82

Relevant Scenarios

• Sources of Contamination
• Number of Sites
• Identity of Claimants

82

83

Single Site Claims

• Separate Spill Incidents
• Types of Pollutants
• Separate Operating Units
• Discrete Areas of Contamination

83

84

Case Examples

• Northern States Power v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
• f N.Y, 523 N.W. 2d 657 (Minn. 1994): Repeated

discharges over time = one “occurrence”

• FMC v. Plaisted, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1132 (Cal. Dist.

1998): Site as a whole is a single occurrence

84

85

More Cases

• Boston Gas Co., d/b/a/ KeySpan Energy New

England v. Century Indemnity, No. 02-12062 RXZ (D. Mass. 2005): Rejects sub-site analysis

• Alcoa v. Aetna, 998 P.2d 856 (Wash. 2000):

Different areas = different occurrences

86

Multiple Site Claims

Can multiple sites be aggregated based on:

• Disposal of specific chemical
• Trans-shipments between sites
• EPA treatment as a single investigation
• Common ownership or operation

86

87

Case Examples

• Con Ed v. Employer’s Insurance of Wausau, 1997

U.S. Dist. Lexis 18486 (S.D. N.Y 1997): Rejects claim that pollution at separate sites can be aggregated even though EPA linked the sites and they were resolved under a single Consent Decree.

• “Unfortunate event” test does not apply where sites

are geographically separate.

87

88

More Dirty Deeds

• DuPont v. Allstate, 693 A. 2d 1059 (Del. 1997):

Manufacturing facility and off-site landfill are not a single “occurrence”

• Endicott Johnson v. Liberty Mutual, 928 F. Supp. 176 (N.D.

N.Y. 1996): Dumping at each site is a separate “occurrence”

• Domtar v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W. 2d 724 (Minn.

1997): Rejects claim that six sites should be aggregated as an integrated business unit

88

89

Insurers Do it Too

• Indiana Gas Co. v. Aetna, 951 F. Supp. 773 (N.D.
• Ind. 1996):

– Rejects insurer’s claim that MGP sites should be aggregated on the basis of a common “cause” so as to limit coverage to a single policy

89

90

General Rule

One Site = One Occurrence

90

91

In Conclusion

• Case law construing the number of “occurrences” is for the

most part:

• 1. Confusing
• 2. Extremely fact specific
• 3. Result oriented
• 4. Inconsistent even within individual states
• 5. All of the above

92

And The Answer Is???

Questions

92